ArticleNeurosurgical review2026
Therapeutic effect of rescue stent implantation on acute intracranial atherosclerotic disease-related large vessel occlusion.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe effectiveness and safety of acute intracranial atherosclerotic disease-related large vessel occlusion (ICAD-LVO) stenting are still up for debate. We conducted a comparative analysis between patients who had successful mechanical thrombectomy (MT) and the group that rescue stent placement following MT failure.
methodsOur study included 1125 patients who underwent thrombectomy between January 2020 and December 2024 at 2 centres in Zhejiang, China. Among them, the number of ICAD-LVO patient cases was 430, which were divided into the group with MT alone group and the group with rescue stent after failed thrombectomy. The two groups were balanced through the use of propensity score matching. The primary outcome was a modification of the Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days, which measured the change in disability. We measured the secondary outcomes of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH), 90-day mortality and good functioning and independence (defined as a 90-day mRS score of 0 to 2).
resultsOur results showed no statistical differences between the good 90-day mRS score, sICH incidence, and 90-day mortality between the rescue stent group and the successful MT group. In addition, we found that stent placement after multiple thrombectomies reduced the 90-day good functional prognosis (mRS 0-2), which was statistically significant (aOR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.22-0.85]; P = 0.02).
conclusionsOur study indicates rescue stenting after failed MT can yield outcomes similar to successful MT. In addition, our study showed that good outcome of placing a rescue stent after 1 failed thrombectomy is better than after multiple thrombectomies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42347994What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.